get_activity_streams

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly states 'Read-only operation' and lists required scopes (activity:read, activity:read_all), which are crucial behavioral traits that an agent needs to know. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing mutation safety and authentication needs. It does not detail error handling or response format, but for a read-only GET, this is sufficient for a 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with headers and is reasonably concise, but it contains redundancy: it repeats the scope information ('Requires activity:read scope...' and later 'Scopes: one of: activity:read, activity:read_all'). This minor duplication prevents a perfect score, but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded with the purpose and key constraints, earning a 4.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple GET for activity streams, with all parameters documented and the purpose clear. It includes authentication scope requirements and read-only status. It does not explain the response structure (no output schema exists), but the description's high-level 'returns the given activity's streams' is adequate for an agent to understand what it will get. Given the simplicity, it is largely complete, though it could mention when to choose this over segment/route stream tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (id, keys, key_by_type) are already described in the schema with clear definitions and enums. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate or enhance beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns the given activity's streams, with a specific verb and resource (GET /activities/{id}/streams). This distinguishes it from other stream tools like get_segment_streams and get_route_streams, even though no direct comparison is made. The purpose is unambiguous and the endpoint adds precision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_segment_streams or get_route_streams. It implies usage by naming the resource ('activity's streams'), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. The scope requirements are about permissions, not usage selection. Thus, it provides a clear purpose but no explicit comparative guidance, rating a 3.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.